We would be hard put to find anyone who thought that this world is so perfect that it cannot improve. Most people would like a better world, a society of justice, unity and peace. However, when any proposal for the construction of such a society is posed, many people counter that it is impossible. When asked why, the most common arguments put forth have to do with the nature of man and society. The purpose for this presentation is to refute popular beliefs by which selfishness, greed, conflict, aggression, and violence define human nature, and to show that they are no more than options that have become predominant in certain cultures, especially in the Western world that has imposed itself on today’s world. It proposes that the roots of this cultural stock are to be found in medieval Europe, which has gained control of a large part of the world through conquest, colonization and cultural hegemony throughout the past five centuries. We will see how the arguments that justify and legitimize this culture have been built –through science, philosophy, religion, and the arts– a full-blown myth and belief system regarding the naturalness and inevitability of contest, struggle and hostility among humans, and how this myth has been institutionalized to form our modern social structures.

1. Science versus Peace?
Deconstructing Adversarial Theory

2. Objectives:
Performance Objective: By the end of this session,
the participants will be able to discuss the weaknesses
of various theories that support the adversarial culture.
Learning Objs: During this session, participants will:
1. Discuss the results of a survey on what people think
about human nature.
2. Make a list of why many believe that world justice,
unity and peace are impossible.
3. Develop responses to some of the reasons identified.
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

3. Culture of Adversarialism
Characterized by divisionism, conflict,
competition, struggle, strife, aggression,
violence, and wars.
Socio-structural aspects consisting of win-
lose relationships.
Psycho-structural aspects based on belief
that win-lose relationships are inevitable
and/or beneficial.
Current globalized Western culture is a
culture of adversarialism.
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

4. Culture of Peace
The opposite of adversarialism: a society of
mutualism, cooperation and mutual aid.
A complex concept that continues to evolve and
develop as the outcome of practice.
A growing body of shared values, attitudes,
behaviors, and lifestyles based on:
• Non-violence,
• Respect for fundamental rights and freedoms,
• Understanding, tolerance and solidarity,
• Co-participation,
• Free circulation of information,
• Full involvement and strengthening of women.
A vast project of multidimensional, world-wide
scope.
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

5. Basic Theses:
‘Human nature’ makes us just as capable of
cooperation as competition, of aggression as
tenderness, of greed as generosity.
Which we express is influenced but not determined
by our culture; and can be changed.
The world status is a fruit of collective, historical
choices, greatly influenced by 500 years of
Western cultural hegemony.
Human nature poses no obstacle to exchanging the
current culture of violence for a culture of peace,
and to building a world of justice, unity and peace.
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

6. Group Discussion
Social dilemmas (win-lose) are destroy-
ing our society.
The solution is to ‘reboot’ all institutions
(as win-win relations).
Many people think this is impossible.
Question: What arguments do they use?
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

7. Epistemological Borrowing
What is epistemological borrowing?
• From physics
• From evolution
• From ethology
• From psychology
• From theology
Reductionism: what
is wrong with it?
What happens when
the theory changes?
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

8. Study Questions: Physics
How did classical physics further the develop-
ment of the human and social sciences?
How did it lead to the worldview for the
culture of adversarialism?
How have the ‘new physics’ opened the door
to a new worldview?
What is the matter
with Social Entropy?
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

9. The Legacy of Physics
Many current sciences were then
branches of philosophy.
Newtonian physics gave them:
• A model of scientific study
• A coherent epistemology
• A ready-made meta-paradigm
It also gave them theories from
which to borrow.
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

10. Social Physics
Physics Society
Atoms Individuals
Collisions Conflicts
Momentum Motivation
Direction Interests
Mass Power
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

11. Philosophical Implications
Classical Physics New Physics
Atomistic Systemic
Reductionist Non-reductionist
Mechanicism Organicism
Deterministic Self-determination
Materialistic Integrality
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

12. Social Entropy
Entropy: Disorder in a system grows or remains stable.
Social entropy: Society will disintegrate and finally collapse.
Reason: More individuals, drivers and interests multiply
complexity of society to unsustainable point and collapse.
Collapse: Spend more energy maintaining social structures
than providing benefits, leads to social disorder.
Chardin: Expansion –> complexification –> interiorization
Systems: Not adapting to change –> tension –> turning
point –> collapse of old system –> rise of new system.
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

13. Study Questions: Evolution
How did the concept of ‘survival of the
fittest’ come about, and what are its
adversarial implications?
How can ‘survival of the fittest’ be
interpreted to support non-adversarial
conclusions?
Which applies best to human society:
natural or artificial selection? Why?
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

14. Survival of the Fittest
Darwin: From artificial
to natural selection
Spencer: Best fit in the
“struggle for life”
Survival of strongest
vs. most adaptable
Merged under name of
“Darwinism” (over
Darwin’s dead body)
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor
the most intelligent, but the most responsive to change.”
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

15. Social Darwinism

17. Non-Adversarial Survival
Humans: not adaptive physiology but behavior.
Individual survival requires community survival.
Community survival
requires mutualism.
Adversarialism is
just maladaptive!
Violent, conflictive
members punished.
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

18. Artificial Selection
Plant wild species –> reproduce the best.
Institutions: no randomly mutating genes.
Society building is conscious, deliberate.
Adapting structures to change is, too.
“Natural selection” is excuse for injustice.
Each failed attempt is costly for society.
Learn from experience and grow together.
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

19. Study Questions: Genetics
How did genetics support adversarial
findings of evolutionary theory?
On what assumptions does socio-
biology base its conclusions?
What is the problem with
genetic determinism?
How does the New Biology
answer these ideas?
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

20. Genetics and adversarial evolution
It provided the mechanism by which
characteristics are passed from one
generation to the next.
Genes were attributed
adversarial intentionality
Richard Dawkins: “The
Selfish Gene”
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

21. Problems with genetic determinism
Double reductionism: gene–man–society
(no proof of behavior or social dynamics)
Universality of feature proves genetic origin
(from gender relations to religious creed)
Genetic continuity: from animals to humans
(mere analogies; evolutionary distance)
Inherited personality: “chip of the old block”
(no sure evidence; circular arguments)
Genetic capacity: not enough DNA
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

22. Problems with Sociobiology
Edward O.Wilson, “Sociobiology–The New Synthesis”:
• Describes human nature by observing society
• Assumes widespread = genetically determined
• This nature coded in us through social Darwinism
Errors: reductionist, biased, ideological, essentialist
Lewontin: An “attempt to convince people that life is
what it has to be and perhaps even ought to be”.
Karlberg: A “justification of injustices and inequities”.
Name replaced by “Evolutionary Psychology”.
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

23. New Biology’s Answers
DNA is a self-organizing force, not blindly
led by natural selection.
Organisms experience and respond to their
environment, but also create it.
Symbiogenesis: organisms were formed by
symbiotic relations turned permanent.
Natural selection adjusts population levels,
but usually does not destroy gene base.
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

24. Seville Statement on Violence
“It is scientifically incorrect to say that
in the course of human evolution there
has been a selection for aggressive
behavior… Violence is neither in our
evolutionary legacy nor in our genes.”
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

25. Study Questions: Ethology
Is there a ‘killer instinct’ in human beings?
Do humans beings
have any instincts?
Do humans have
a ‘violent brain’?
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

26. Do we have a killer instinct?
Evolutionary distance from animals too great
Hunting is not murder
War is unique to humans
Most youth are peaceful
‘Training’ changes this
Nation-states impose war
Even this is relatively new in human history
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

27. Are there any human instincts?
Depends on common or scientific definition:
• “A repetitive pattern of specific and often complex
behaviors, common to entire species, automatic,
irresistible, unalterable, not due to learning”
Man has no behaviors that meet this definition!
Reflex: simple, automatic reaction from spinal
cord or local nerves
Biological predisposition: innate, more complex
behavior that requires learning to express itself
Drive: biological need that grows until satisfied
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

28. The Violent Brain
‘Limbic center’ lets us feel fear and anger
A normal person has full control over it
Surrounded by many control functions
Pathologies heighten feeling; lose control
Not define human nature by pathology
Most brain centers for peaceful activities
”It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have
a ‘violent brain’… There is nothing in our neuro-
physiology that compels us to react violently.”
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

29. Behavior and Fitness
Effect on Effect on Effect on
Behavior
actor receiver Society
Selfishness More fitness Less fitness 0 sum
Cooperation More fitness More fitness + sum
Little less Much more
Altruism + sum
fitness fitness
Vengeance Less fitness Less fitness – sum
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

30. Study Question: Good/Evil
What are possible consequences (positive
or negative) of the beliefs:
• that human beings are evil
or sinners by nature?
• that we are inherently good?
Is there an alternative approach?
What might be some of its potential
consequences?
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

31. Borrowing from Theology
From fatalism to determinism
From original sin to genetics
The problem with innate
goodness
The alternative of a double
human nature
…
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

32. Generosity
Cooperation
Solidarity
Double Human Compassion Higher
Tolerancia Nature
Truth
Love
Nature
Mind
Hatred
Lies
Greed
Violence Lower
Aggressive Nature
Competition
Selfishness

33. Myths of Origin
Say where we came from and how
Timeless: cover past, present, future
Give us an identity: good or bad
Define prospects: empower or limit us
Some contemporary examples:
• Creation myth in Book of Genesis
• Evolution myth in (Neo-)Darwinism
We need an empowering myth of origin
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

34. The ‘Proof by Assertion’ Fallacy
“A lie told often enough becomes
the truth."
(Joseph Goebbles, Nazi
Minister of Propaganda)

35. Science & Socio-cultural Reality
Science justifies historical events
Science legitimizes the
status quo
Science reinforces social
attitudes
Science can be a source
of socio-cultural change
It’s up to us…
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-

36. THE END
Or just the beginning?
(c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton-Evans
Newton-